20 bucks for the NCSE say that Joe feels far too cosy as an esteemed commenter at UD to migrate back; KF's positive feedback can't be emulated by Hunter who rarely bothers to comment once he has made the OP.

You lost that one already. †JoeTard is already back spouting his usual anti-science one liners.

I give him a week before his next obscenity-spewing meltdown and Corny has to disable comments again.

The evil Darwinists are perpetrating the Warfare Thesis with respect to science and religion:

†

Quote

Ever since its foundation was laid in the nineteenth century, the Warfare Thesis has found increasing application. It can be recognized by its two basic components: an attack on science and an attack on scientists.

Uh-huh, this from the author of this book:

†

Quote

Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science

OMG, it's the warfare thesis. †Corny must be a Darwinist.

Sure, you might say that Corny's using two different ideas of "religion" there. †And I'd say, precisely, he lies about science being religion and thereby †plays the warfare thesis to the hilt, even saying that said "religion" won ('illegitimately'--with bollocks to back up that claim), then the very real attacks on science that this mutt perpetrates are supposedly false "warfare" because the warfare thesis is "flawed." †There's some truth to the flaw idea, but, especially in the US, it's just a bit flawed yet a very real and unending fact, even though (flaw) not all religious denominations agree with dumbshits like Hunter.

But I suppose it's just a religion to want consistency and a cessation of hypocrisy. †It's fair to say that such a "religion" is science, though, not at all the disgusting religious melange of prejudice and stupidity that drives Hunter.

Person Y: ďSo the appearance of species through time, as seen in fossils, is far from random. Ö †No theory of special creation, or any theory other than evolution, can explain these patterns.Ē [emphasis in original]

The answer is that Person X and Person Y are the same person. In this case the person is Jerry Coyne but it could be any one of the leading evolutionists because they commonly make these kinds of self-revealing pronouncements. The first statement delegitimizes supernatural explanations and the second statement is a supernatural explanation.

So, um, what was the whine about "materialists" ruling out supernatural explanations?

Seems that they don't at all. †Or Corny's too stupid and/or dishonest to care even about maintaining any internal consistency in ID lies.

Corny is one of the few creationists I think is mentally ill. Some are just obnoxious, like FL, and some are so very strange that they may have severe mental problems. Corny falls into that category. It's a religious delusion that's beyond banter.

I have no idea what warps Corny, but he is sort of the etymological idiot. †Which seques into a couple of idiots exchanging amazement over the fact that we actually infer a cause adequate to the effects we discover:

† †

Quote

Peter WadeckFebruary 17, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say. When they say there is mountains of evidence for evolution they think that this is true. For example, if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything. They only show a similarity. Evolution attempts to explain the change from one species to another. Similar morphologies say nothing about how one species could change into another. It is no evidence for evolution at all. It is a mistake in logic that would fail a first year philosophy student. This is incredible. And yet these biology professors consistently make this mistake. So when an evolutionist says there is mountains of evidence for evolution, in fact there is none. Words escape me to describe this unbelievable error throughout this field of knowledge. I can't bring myself to call it science.ReplyReplies

† †Cornelius HunterFebruary 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

† †Peter:

† †I think I finally understand these evolutionists. They actually believe what they say.

† †Yes, it takes a long time to finally get it. Amazingly simple once you see it, but it usually takes a long time. Like those incredible optical illusions:

It's just amazing, Darwinists know what to expect from evolution, find it in life, and then just assume that life evolved. †

Why can't they just follow the evidence where it leads?

A dead body with bullets from Fred's gun is just a dead body with bullets from Fred's gun in it. †Why would you suppose that means anything important? †

And it all might be an illusion anyhow. †Aliens work in mysterious ways, you know (well, substitute words where necessary).

My God, next you'll see people supposing that Greek and German evolved from a common ancestor. †That all humans are related, simply because of their similarities. †Well, they're not all the same, you atheistic bozos.

Determining cause from effect is absolutely beyond science. †Or, at least beyond ID science, which just happens to be the latest and greatest, so the only one that matters.

if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything.

That's right, and similar patterns in 'silent' substitution don't prove anything. And hierarchic commonality of longer stretches of DNA inversion and insertion and deletion †doesn't prove anything. And commonality of transpositional insert positions don't prove anything. And relationships between karyotypes don't prove anything. And the fact that trees are recovered from objective phylogenetic analysis doesn't prove anything. And the concordance of many independent lines of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Fucking Darwinists. They're just determined to see relationship where none exists.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Well of course two species taken by themselves don't prove a general principle. It's several overall patterns among a huge number of species that are the reason the theory gets accepted by people who've studied the subject matter.

Corny's at it again. †His latest steaming pile is a rant about the Supreme Court overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8. †The evil gheys are now free to marry and ruin society even faster than before. †Oh, and it's somehow the theory of evolution's fault. †The same evil conspiracy of scientists that EXPEL the Creationists and publish all that false data somehow influenced the Supreme Court to help with civilization's destruction.

Corny's at it again. †His latest steaming pile is a rant about the Supreme Court overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8. †The evil gheys are now free to marry and ruin society even faster than before. †Oh, and it's somehow the theory of evolution's fault. †The same evil conspiracy of scientists that EXPEL the Creationists and publish all that false data somehow influenced the Supreme Court to help with civilization's destruction.

His contention seems to be that just as scientists find creationists not just wrong but in fact immoral people, gay marriage supporters argue that anti-gay marriage people are not just wrong, but immoral as well.

He considers both to be examples of "out of touch elites", when in fact they're just examples of people with better values, vs dumb bigots like himself.

More and more I'm seeing "stop gays from marrying" morph into "stop calling me a bigot just because I'm a bigot you meanies."

While his latest nonsense is egregious even for him, let's face it: Cornelius "Thylacine" Hunter is a professional shark jumper.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

For whereas man-made machines may have a great number of components, such machines are specifically designed to limit the number of interactions. The components only interact with a small number of other components and a matrix describing these interactions would be very sparse. Not so for many biological systems.

Wonder if he thought about this as he wrote. Biological systems' features are contrary to design, therefore they are designed.

For whereas man-made machines may have a great number of components, such machines are specifically designed to limit the number of interactions. The components only interact with a small number of other components and a matrix describing these interactions would be very sparse. Not so for many biological systems.

Wonder if he thought about this as he wrote. Biological systems' features are contrary to design, therefore they are designed.

Well, the idea that biology is designed is just assumed. What he's actually aiming at is this:

"Humans can only design things with limited interactions. Therefore, designed objects with this many interactions must have been created by something far, far greater than some mere human."

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Corny had a major meltdown on his blog today and has begun banning people and deleting comments. †At least three posts pointing out his quote-mining and misrepresentations were magically disappeared, quite possibly more.

First KF, now Corny. †Is there some sort of brain disease going around the IDiot camp?

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

One does kind of wonder. †That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes? †Quiet defections, perhaps? †The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public. †"Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds. †I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do. †Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you. But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

One does kind of wonder. †That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes? †Quiet defections, perhaps? †The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public. †"Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds. †I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do. †Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you. †But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

Glen Davidson

Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.

I think there's quite a bit of truth in that. †The IDiots at the DI sunk quite a bit of time and money into Darwin's Doubt. †Now that it's done such a magnificent face plant and sunk into a quick obscurity the 'Tooters don't know what to do with themselves.

Not as bad for them as the Dover debacle, but in the same neighborhood.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.